CO129-264 - Governor Sir Robinson & Public Offices - 1894 [9-12] — Page 13

combination should take place. Mr. JACKSON, in view of the very great majority of the population of the Colony being Chinese and of the special wants of the Chi- nese, is in favour of a separate officer and Department to deal with Chinese affairs, "an opinion which," he states, "was shared by Sir CECIL SMITH, the late Dr. STEWART and Sir JAMES RUSSELL, all of whom had held the appointment of Registrar General." 18. Mr. CHATER is of opinion that the department of Registrar General should remain as at present but that one officer might he head of both the departments of Colonial Secretary and of Registrar General. Mr. KESWICK Considers that the office should not be continued as a separate office, as the Registrar General is likely to become biassed in all matters relating to the Chinese and is liable to think that he is bound to espouse their cause in all matters. Mr. ACKROYD is of opinion that the office of Registrar General, in so far as it is an office to attend to Chinese business, should be abolished altogether as the Chinese are perfectly able to take care of themselves.

19. The Members of the Committee apparently have each a different opinion on this subject, but in reality Mr. CHATER and Mr. KESWICK are in favour of amalgama- tion and Mr. JACKSON is in favour of the status in quo, while Mr. ACKROYD is in favour of abolition.

20. As regards the opinion of Mr. ACKROYD, he recommends that the office of Registrar General should be abolished in so far as it is an office to attend to Chinese business. But he has not attempted in any way to justify this opinion by show- ing what portion of the duties of Registrar General is confined to Chinese business and what portion to business other than Chinese. As a matter of fact, with the ex- ception of the registration of European births, deaths and marriages, the work of the Registrar General is entirely concerned with the Chinese. Nor has Mr. ACK- ROYD made any suggestion as to how the Chinese portion of the work of the Re- gistrar General and the duties imposed upon him by laws specially dealing with Chinese matters are to be distributed among the other departments, if his abolition- ist policy is carried out, nor how the Chinese translation work of the Government is to be performed, nor how the Government is to obtain advice on Chinese affairs when occasion arises. As to Mr. ACKROYD's bare statement, unsupported by any facts, that it (. . the establishment of a special office) gave the Chinese a false opinion of their position and rights and led them to believe that they are not sub- ject to the ordinary laws and customs of the Colony and that they are to a certain extent separate from the remainder of the population and independent of the ordi- nary authorities and laws, I have not read anything in the history of this Colony nor seen anything since my arrival in Hougkong to justify such a statement. On the contrary, I have found that the Registrar General constitutes a most useful and necessary link between the native and European communities, the members of which, owing to racial and other differences, tend to keep separate, whilst their ignorance of each other is supreme. While, therefore, not in favour of abolition of the post of Registrar General which would in my opinion be a grave political blunder, I see no reason why there should not be an amalgamation of the posts of Colonial Secretary and Registrar General as recommended by me in my confidential despatch of the 13th July, 1892. My experience of the manner in which the Registrar General has performed the combined duties of Registrar General and Colonial Secretary during the last four months-a period during which, owing to the exist- ence of the plague in Hongkong, the Colony has been passing through a crisis which has certainly not tended to decrease the work and responsibilities of the holder of the two posts-has confirmed me in the opinion that the amalgamation can be effected without impairing the efficiency of the public service or without being objectionable on political grounds. Of course such an amalgamation, if it Į were to be continued, would necessitate the holder of the combined offices having an acquaintance with Chinese, which would limit the choice of candidates for the post to Hongkong and Straits Cadets who have studied Chinese, But in view of } the peculiar circumstances and special requirements of Hongkong I consider such

16376..

163782

17688

gr

11

a limitation would be rather an advantage than a drawback, as it would contine selection to officers who are acquainted with the very large majority of the population and with the local requirements of the Colony. But even if difficulties should arise in this direction, which I do not think is at all probable, it would be an easy matter to revert to the present system.

21. I am also of opinion that the combination of the two offices might even- tually lead to a greater reduction in the staff of the two departments than that already recommended.

HARBOUR MASTER.

(Report, para. 52. Evidence, pp. 128, 138. Harbour Master's letter No. 57 of 2nd April, 1894 et seq.)

22. With the exception of the post of Assistant Harbour Master, with which I will deal presently, the Retrenchment Committee does not, in presence of Captain RUMSEY'S statement that no retrenchment can be made, offer any recommendation as regards the clerical staff, except as to salaries, in which they recommend reduc- tions showing a total annual maximum saving of $5,578 and a minimum saving of $3,758. In all these recommendations 1 concur.

23. As regards the post of Assistant Harbour Master there is, as Your Lordship will observe. a difference of opinion among the members of the Committee. Mr. JACKSON is in favour of retaining the post: Mr. KESWICK is also in favour of retaining it, though he considers "that there would not be enough work for the Assistant Harbour Master and that some additional duties might be assigned to him." Mr. ACKROYD and Mr. CRATER do not consider an Assistant Harbour Master necessary.

fn my confidential despatch of the 13th July, 1892, recom- mended the abolition of the post of Assistant Harbour Master and Your Lordship, in your reply of the 24th October, stated that you had noted Mr. HASTINGS' name for transfer to employment in another Colony. I see no reason to change the view I originally held which is strengthened by the evidence and report of the Retrenchment Committee.

21. The question of the inspection of Emigrants is still under consideration.

(Report, para. 67.

OBSERVATORY.

Bordence, p. 79. Director's letters Nos. 5 und 8 of 23rd March,

1894, and 23rd April, 1894.)

25. The Committee reports that it is unable to recommend any reduction in the staff of the Observatory or any retrenchments in the salaries of the officers who constitute that staff. It calls attention, however, to the difference in the staff of the Hongkong Observatory and that of the Mauritius Observatory, and recom- mends that no addition should be made to the staff of the former, the work of which should be confined to meteorological science and to what is of local interest and for the benefit of the shipping.

26. As regards the Observatory at Mauritius, I will endeavour to obtain through the Government of that Colony a detailed account of the work performed by its staff in order, if possible, to ascertain the reason for the difference referred to by the Committee. With respect to the recommendations of the Committee 1 entirely concur in them, and instructions will be issued accordingly to the Director of the Observatory, who will also be requested to carry out the suggestions of the Committee contained in the 68th and 69th paragraphs of its Report on the subject of the issue of information regarding storm warnings. The extra cost, if any, entailed by the carrying out of these suggestions will be defrayed as recommended by the Committee out of the Light Dues, which there is no idea of abolishing at the present time.